₦airaland Forum

HELLO MUKINA MUKINA MUKINA MUKINA
How is the weather down there!!!

ritchboy:
I hope Van der Vaart gets run over by an 18-wheeler. . .

Shut the eff up man . . . we both had Van der Vart.
You're going to lose to a better manager . . . it's not your fault, it's the comeback spirit.

debosky:


From 8 points to four in the blink of an eye.

I'm still beating Ritchboy so I'm good. . . the force continues.

ARGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!! They couldn't just keep a clean-sheet. 90 + 4 minutes for Bleep's sake!!!

debosky:
Chamo has hit the jackpot with Campbell and Adams. . . .I pity his opponent.

Great minds think alike.

ritchboy:
Shey na Eldee be Iyana Ipaja Rangers?

Too bad he's up against me when i'm in wild mode

So I didn't even need to go into a 'wild' mode to kick your ass.
When will you guys learn that you can't stop the comeback??

I'm on 22 now . . . prolly going to get higher after today.

Thank God he left Chelsea sha . . .ahn ahn!!!

Whether you guys like it or not . . . years of practice and better training techniques in clubs like Barca and Arsenal have made it possible for players of today to eclipse those of the past.

These days players with natural talents get signed at 12 an trained for 8-10 years on a particular style of play, they put them on special diets and training, one coach for bout 5 players, get them watching these legends and picking up every single part of their game.

And also added to that, most players are trained on 2-3 positions . . . If anyone told you in 1980 that a wingers would finally learn sumn apart from run-cross, you'd have slapped him, now Ronaldo is doing it every week.

Scientists have made our game beautiful . . . the sooner you accept it, the better.

buzugee:
so if it features a host of artists, one artist has a time slot of like 30 minutes or less right ? you know you are really not helping your case here right ? ok let me kick some ballistics here.
i[b]n america, the hottest acts get paid $40,000 per concert. does not matter if it is jay z or dmx. standard fee of $40,000 per concert. [/b]this is why they do tours. if you do 50 dates in a year you have made yourself 2 million dollars. this is how they eat.

ok in nigeria lets assume they charge 5k. this is like 50 dollars. then you have at least 3 thousand people in the crowd right ? cuz i know naijas use big venues. so this is 3000 multiplied by 50 dollars. this is $15 million dollars serious gouging

but hey i am lil ol me. make una do una self, me i will do me.

That's a B.S lie . . . are you fucking having a laugh. Lady Gaga gets $100,000 to show up at clubs and not perform and you're telling me they earn $40,000 per show.
NA LIE!!!

If you listen to hiphop you'd have heard rappers boast about their fees. . . not to talk about Lady Gaga or Beyonce.
Abi which kain lie be this gan nahh. You think we're daft or sumn??

Y'all need to come on Twitter. . . Arsenal is by far the most represented EPL club.
Our players are fun, and they give out signed shirts too.

Sagamite:
The thing there is that Jay-Z will not only sell in Glastonbury but also Kenya and faster at selling out.

Furthermore, because Tuface can sell in Kenya as much as Jay-Z sells in Glastonbury does not justify selling to Kenya what is being charged for Jay-Z at Glastonbury. But, that said, if some maga wants to pay for Tuface what Jay-Z can charge to show he is a "gbo-gbo big boy", that is fine. Just like if some maga wants to buy a dress in Shoprite for the same price for one in Harrods, not a problem, maga must pay.

But we're not talking about what Jay-Z can sell in Kenya, it's what Tuface can sell at a particular place.
Nike sells the same pair trainers for $60 in the US and then £60 in the UK . . . why?? Because people are willing to buy at this price in the UK.

If people are tired of being magas, then they should stop going there with their girlfriends. . . in a country where to see a movie is N1500, people shouldn't be complaining bout 2face and boycott shows if they're pissed.

Sagamite:
Bacause Jay-Z and Beyonce are Jay-Z and Beyonce to the world.

You can't say because Shoprite is Harrods to Nigeria, that means Shoprite should charge the same as Harrods. Or because Goldman Sachs pays £300K per employee, then IBTC should pay the same. Nigeria is less than most other countries.

Yeah, they feel they are as important as Jay-Z and Beyonce are to Nigeria . . . if you disagree, don't go see them.
I refused to see Drake for £25 a year ago, he came back this year and the average tickets are £50. I accepted it as, maybe other people value his music more than I do.

Nigeria is the entertainment capital of Africa . . . our artistes are idols in Ghana and Eastern Africa, Tuface will sell out in Kenya as fast as Jay-Z sold Glastonbury.

'I'm about to change the game like a Fabregas pass'

Ibime - Maestro

tjadeba:
Please compare the economy of England and Nigeria.Inspite of the recession ravaging them in England,they still have higher purchasing power than in Nigeria.May be easier for more people to pay £70 to watch a show than for most Nigerians to watch a show for N10,000

Well if it was that hard for Nigerians to pay that much why does Star Mega Jam consistently have a full attendance??
As I said, they know how much they're worth, if you don't agree with them, don't go . . . they'll drop their prices.

Of course they are . . . they don't make money off their £150 album, and if you want to see the big stars you've gotta pay.
I paid £70 to see Jay-Z and Coldplay last summer . . . Tuface and M.I are Jay-Z and Beyonce to Nigeria, why should it be any less??

It's not by force . . . when y'all stop going, they'll drop the prices.

Mayne . . . me I haff taya to be asking the same question efri week jare.
Haba . . . make una win na!!!

So finally all this time Ruggedman fans have said 'go and do your own track' AQ obeyed and this happens.

semid4lyfe:
Heheheh. . . .I don laugh die for here

Omo . . . you no see as Tosin just dey pack free tracks give us because we talk say the guy wack.

Abeg Naeto-C is wack too!!!

@Sagamite

And could you please cut that silly lie about 'there's no forced marriage in Southern Nigeria'??
What kind of B.S lie is that??

Am I the only one that's seen girls being married of to old men that agree to pay their fees and take care of the family?? Even girls as young as 15 . . .
What kind of B.S are you spewing here abeg??

Sagamite:
Rubbish!

Absolute Rubbish! Stop strawmanning me.

I REPEATEDLY, I repeat, REPEATEDLY stated above that a state has a responsibility to protect a child from danger. Stop saying I said "the courts don't have the right to protect the child".

Rubbish! When debating with me, it is only reasonable and polite to read my arguments and inteprete efficiently.

Just because you say sumn repeatedly does not mean you agree with it. . . you say sumn and then imply sumn entirely different.
If they agree with a 17 year old that it is dangerous for his rights, then letting him go to Nigeria is the same thing as not protecting his rights.
And chill with the capitalisation abeg.

Sagamite:
So basically you are saying the courts should assume the parents are guilty until they prove themselves innocent?

There is no empirical evidence to show that such forced marriage can realistically occur or has ever occurred.

There is no evidence/witness put forth of the parents planning a marriage.

There is no evidence/witness put forth of the parents saying they are going to arrange a marriage.

There is no evidence/witness that after breaking the law, they have conducted OR ATTEMPTED to conduct a forced marriage. (albeit, this is after the fact)

But you state it is onus on them to prove innocence? Is that where law is moving nowadays?

Really? Guilty until proven innocent?

It's not about guilty and innocent, it's not a crime . . . but the duty of proof in sensitive cases like children and forced marriages are heavily biased towards the interests of the child in family law.
An example is when your neighbour alleges that you're abusing your child and little circumstantial evidence will most likely lead to you  to the courts placing restrictions.

Since Baby P and cases like X V Bedfordshire, the courts have stopped taking cases on kids lightly.
I'm not going to debate the merits of the law, you can write to your MP . . . or just leave your child in Nigeria.
I didn't make the law, you and I voted the Parliament . . . it's that simple.

Now if you wanna argue the facts of the case . . .

The boy said he fears that he'll be forced to marry if he goes back to Nigeria, the smart thing to do would have been to fight the Forced Marriage Protection Order in court instead of smuggling the child out.
How then can you seek protection in the same law you knowingly pervert ??

Nigeria is known for arranged marriages . . . FACT.
Nigeria is known for child abuse . . . FACT.
He is 17 years old . . . he has the right to choose where he wants to live according to the law . . . FACT
The woman has not proven to the court that she is not going to exorcise the boy or force him to marry.

The woman instead of proving all these things, smuggled the boy out of the country. . . and you're telling me she should be released . . . GTFOH!!!

o Nigerian parents should be banned from taking their kids to Nigeria because, according to YOU, the British judicial system has a right to BLANKETLY, frivously BLANKETLY, make an assumption that any kid in Nigeria is in danger?

So explain to me what stops a Nigerian court from preventing a UK kid from being taken by his O&G expatraite parents back to the UK where child abuse is a big issue.

Is the UK not infamous for paedophilia, anorexia, drug-driven child suffering, availability and easy-access of p-orn, child trafficking, child prostitution, pre-maturity sexual activity which the govenrment encourages by providing contraception and school-bullying that leads to suicide?

A ridiculous and self-degenerating argument.

So a UK court can prevent a parent from taking their child to Nigeria or ANY other non-first-world country of origin because of NON-direct issues that exist due to weak local structures that is inferior to UKs. WTF! I repeat WTF!

Is that what you want to bring before the courts??
The Nigerian courts should be able to stop a child from being taken to the UK?? That's Nigerian law, of course you're allowed to do that if the jurisdiction allows it.

A UK court can protect a 17 year old citizen from being taken out of the country if the relevant authorities have found that there is a risk of that happening. A reasonable risk which has not been successfully dispelled, one which has considerably increased since the boy was smuggled to Nigeria.

She has been held in contempt of the court partly for the breach of procedural requirement and also for intentionally being illicit in the perversion of justice.
In this part of the world we have laws, and we have procedures, and we enforce them.

As I've said if you're pissed about it, instead of shouting 'WTF!!!' . . . go on BBC Question Time and argue or just run for a seat in Parliament.

Chei . . . so Ruggedman fans don finally find person wey dem fit yab??

Sagamite:
Where did I say that?

Point it out.

Be specific.

And?

How does this equate to "courts don't have the right to protect the child"?

If you say the courts don't have the right to prevent parents to a place they feel is dangerous for his rights, then you're effectively saying they shouldn't protect the child.
The courts think that there is a higher chance of him being forced to marry in Nigeria than in the UK, if they cannot decide on that issue, then they're not pursuing their common law duty to protect the child.

That's how it equates . . . for how they arrive at this conclusion, I cleared that up in this post . . .

'In this case . . . the burden of proof is on the parents, not the courts, not the child to show that they're not going to subject the boy to a breach of his rights as a British citizen.

You came here and said it is fake because his particular clan has never taken part in arranged marriage, and you want to convince the courts??
In the same country where child abuse is one of the biggest issues??

Any proof the parents might want to bring are overridden by the facts that Nigeria is infamous for arranged marriages, child trafficking, children hawking, religion-driven child neglect and the minor issue of the parent kidnapping the child.

You want to balance all that with the argument that one village does not practice forced marriages?? Abegi.
Any lawyer that wins this case for the parent should be fast-forwarded to QC level.'

Sagamite:
I keep on saying you are not reading what I put down.

Show me where I said the courts don't have the right to protect the child.

I wait.

You said they shouldn't protect the child when they feel he's in danger.

'You raise your child, not the Crown. The Crown has a right to protect against danger to the child, not to dictate how or where a child be raised that is not dangerous.

It is not a Nanny State or North Korea.'

@Sagamite

You said the courts don't have the right to protect the child and I said if Nigerian parents don't like it, they should relocate to Morocco.

In this case . . . the burden of proof is on the parents, not the courts, not the child to show that they're not going to subject the boy to a breach of his rights as a British citizen.

You came here and said it is fake because his particular clan has never taken part in arranged marriage, and you want to convince the courts??
In the same country where child abuse is one of the biggest issues??

Any proof the parents might want to bring are overridden by the facts that Nigeria is infamous for arranged marriages, child trafficking, children hawking, religion-driven child neglect and the minor issue of the parent kidnapping the child.

You want to balance all that with the argument that one village does not practice forced marriages?? Abegi.
Any lawyer that wins this case for the parent should be fast-forwarded to QC level.

manny4life:
Rrrrrrrrrbish right? Here yourself out; the woman in question is not a U.K. citizen by BIRTH neither is her son. The rrrrrrrrrrrubish I'm talking about is if you going to willfully violate a court order on the grounds that you don't want to live by the laws governing those rrrrrrrrrubish , , I think any sane person would rather give up everything from that rrrrrrrrrrrubish country and go elsewhere or their country Nigeria. You don't have to renounce your Nigerian birth right but you can always give up British Naturalization rights.

Again if the woman did not like U.K. citizen rights and laws, why break one when they admitted you to be one theirs? So to finalize my rrrrrrrrrrrrubish, if she wanted to violate U.K. laws willfully, then leave the country in peace or face penalty. You cannot claim something you're not. Until you have finally given up those British Rights, you are bound by law.

Leave Sagamite with his Anti-whiteman views.
Someone needs to remind him that the law is there for a reason . . . because British citizens voted a British Parliament to enact laws to protect British children.
When you decide to disobey these laws, your civil liberties are seized . . . if you don't like it go live on Kilimanjaro, one less person to waste my tax on.

And then you act like Nigeria is the world's best place for protection of child rights . . .

Isn't it this same region where kids are beaten up and left out to die for being 'possessed by witches'??
Isn't it the same area where kids are sent outside to sell gala on major roads??
Isn't it the same parents that kidnapped him and took him back to the one place he refused to go??

And you want them to believe her when she says she's not marrying him away . . . let them lock her up till she brings him back.

@Sagamite

Dude, it's the law . . . if Nigerian parents want to forcefully marry their kids out at 12 . . . there's ways to do it.

The courts are bound by the laws of the UK to protect the best interests of the child, you can act like it's a silly law but when you see druggies having kids on benefit, then you'll know why.
It's not a nanny state, it's a welfare state, google Re A and see what I'm talking about.

If you want to marry of your child at 17, there are different options you can take

1. Don't raise your child in the United Kingdom, because you'll be subject to UK law, and in my part of the world . . . children have rights.
2. Tell your brothers up north to stop forced marriages, they're a freaking majority for bleeps sake.
3. And most effective . . . import Nigerian Senators into the UK House of Commons and force them to repeal the UK Family Law Act of 1996 so the courts won't be able to protect your child.

Sagamite:
UK Citizen or not, he is 17 and a ward of his parents, they have a right to raise him wherever they deem fit.

And if the courts are going by the grounds of his protection from forced marriage, then any sane and intelligent judge would have taken into context the culture of the people.

That part of Nigeria does not and HAS NEVER had a culture of forced marriages. Not even for girl-children.

Dumb and ignorant judgements.

The court has a duty placed on it by the Crown to protect children from bad decisions by parents.
And no . . . the culture doesn't count when he's above 16, he has the right to marry and choose who he wants to get married to at that age. So if there's any risk that he can be forced, the court has a duty to protect him. . . there is an obvious risk here, he was smuggled out of the UK.

There is a well known culture of forced marriages in Nigeria, the balance of probabilities shows that it is difficult to prove to the courts that they're not forcing him to marry.

BTW . . . she's not being punished for taking care of her child she is being held in contempt for obstructing the courts.

PRAISE THA LORT!!! PRAISE JIXOS!!! Dayokanu is alive!!!

Na wa oh . . . why didn't our nmber one part-time supporter, Dayokanu show up today??

FREE IYA NAS DRINKS ON THE HOUSE TODAY!!!

One drink per person though

I can't even shout . . . I have a headache

Which kain team be this . . . you press, they break, you don't they press.